Background
The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed Jamira Davis’s murder conviction because the trial court did not question a juror after receiving evidence that the juror had discussed the case and the jury’s deliberations with an outsider. The published decision requires a meaningful, tactful inquiry when credible information suggests a sworn juror communicated about a pending criminal case. A judge cannot reliably decide whether misconduct occurred or caused prejudice without developing the relevant facts.
Davis was convicted of killing Brandon “Boleg” Boden, whose body was found after firefighters extinguished a house fire. An autopsy showed he had been shot before the fire. Davis gave investigators several accounts before admitting she shot Boden, claiming self-defense after a sexual assault. She testified at trial, and the jury began deliberating on a Friday.
When court resumed Monday, an attorney unaffiliated with the case reported overhearing two men discuss a woman serving on the jury. The conversation included details that the case involved a twenty-year-old defendant and a shooting, that deliberations stood at ten to two, and that two holdouts—including a correctional officer—would not change their views. The attorney believed one speaker indicated the juror was his wife. Davis asked for a mistrial and objected when the trial court declined to question the identified juror. The court concluded the information did not rise to the level requiring relief, the jury returned a guilty verdict, and Davis received a thirty-five-year sentence.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Vinson wrote that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to question Juror No. 285. Federal and South Carolina constitutions protect a criminal defendant’s right to an impartial jury. When credible allegations raise doubt about a sworn juror’s conduct or qualifications, the trial court must conduct a probing but tactful inquiry sufficient to make an informed decision.
The outsider’s testimony did not itself establish that a mistrial was required. It did, however, show an uncontroverted conversation concerning the trial and deliberations. The existing record did not reveal precisely what the juror told the third party or whether the third party responded in a way that could affect the juror. Without questioning the juror, the trial judge could not determine whether a hearing under Remmer v. United States was necessary, whether the juror violated her oath, or whether any misconduct reached the merits and prejudiced Davis.
Remmer treats private communication or contact with a juror about a pending criminal matter as presumptively prejudicial, subject to the State’s opportunity to show harmlessness. South Carolina decisions likewise emphasize careful investigation of possible outside influence. Because the trial court did not gather the facts needed to apply those rules, its ruling was controlled by legal error. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial rather than addressing Davis’s separate directed-verdict and jury-charge claims.
Key Takeaways
- Credible evidence that a juror discussed an ongoing criminal case and deliberations with an outsider requires the trial court to investigate through a probing, tactful inquiry.
- The initial report need not independently prove prejudice or justify an immediate mistrial; it must provide enough credible information to require factual development.
- A court cannot decide whether the Remmer presumption applies or has been rebutted while leaving basic questions about the communication unanswered.
- Failure to question the identified juror here required reversal and a new trial, not merely a post-verdict remand for supplemental findings.
Why It Matters
Davis gives South Carolina trial lawyers a clear roadmap when suspected juror communications surface. Counsel should promptly preserve who heard the conversation, the exact words recalled, how the speaker was linked to a juror, and which details match the pending case. The requested remedy should include an on-the-record juror inquiry designed to determine both outbound disclosure and any information or pressure flowing back to the juror.
For trial judges, the opinion distinguishes investigation from ultimate relief. Questioning a juror does not predetermine that misconduct occurred, that prejudice exists, or that a mistrial must be granted. It creates the record necessary to decide those issues while protecting the defendant’s right to an impartial jury and the confidentiality of legitimate deliberations. Skipping that inquiry can invalidate an otherwise completed trial and require the State, witnesses, and defendant to begin again.